PEPSU TRANSPORT CO PRIVATE Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution filed by the pepsu Transport Company (Private) Ltd. , Kot Kapura, District Bhatinda, challenging the legality of the award dated 7th of October 1986 given by Shri ishwar Das Pawar, Presiding Officer. Industrial Tribunal. Pun-jab. Chandigarh, respondent No. 2.

(2.) AN industrial dispute having arisen between the workmen and the management of the Petitioner-Company, the Governor of the Punjab referred to respondent No. 2 the following two questions for adjudication Under Clause (d) of Sub-section (1)of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the Act):

(3.) WITH regard to Pritam Singh Johal, respondent No. 5, the position was this. He was employed as a clerk by the petitioner-company on 1st of July 1953. He was promoted as a Checker in 1958. According to Shri Chanan Singh. Managing director of the Company, R. W. 1, the Company suffered losses in the years 196263, 1963-64 and 1964-65. In view thereof, they thought 'that the expense ratio of the Company must be brought down With that end in view, the Board of Directors, in their meeting on 31-3-1965, decided that the posts of Mistri (held by Lal Chand respondent No. 4) and Checker be abolished Consequently, respondent No. 4 was retrenched with effect from 20th of May 1965 and Pritam Singh Johal, Checker, from 28th of May 1965. These retrenchments were approved in the meeting of the directors on 4th of June 1965. On 25th of May 1965, a notice was sent to respondent No. 5 indicating the reasons for his retrenchment and calling upon him to collect the compensation before leaving on 28th of May 1965. He did not collect the amount as directed and the same was, therefore, sent to him by money order and it was received by him under protest on 4th of June 1965. Thereupon, he represented that he had not been paid the correct amount of compensation and his retrenchtment was not bona fide. The management then sent him another sum of Rs. 122. 22 by money order on 25th of June 1965 and the same was received by him on 28th of June 1965. His retrenchment was found to be bad in law and consequently set aside by respondent No. 2 on the following two grounds: